It's not without its sad side, though:"Mitchell added that the locals were unwilling to help injured monitor lizards due to its reputation of being a scavenger"The way I see it, Third World countries are not defined by their lack of wealth, but rather by their lack of education....

"Mitchell added that the locals were unwilling to help injured monitor lizards due to its reputation of being a scavenger"The way I see it, Third World countries are not defined by their lack of wealth, but rather by their lack of education....

You're saying that locals in First World countries would somehow react better or be more educated about the eating habits of their local herps? I can only speak for America, which perhaps you're unfamiliar with, but have you heard of rattlesnake roundups? Is there some great compassion towards reptiles demonstrated on a regular basis by the common man in Europe that's different than how most people react here?

Having seen the non-harassment of monitors in Thailand's city parks and the great degree to which monitors, pythons, turtles, and other large herps were allowed to coexist with humans in Bangkok, I can't imagine them getting a better response in an American park, and I can very easily imagine a much worse response. Heck, my friend had neighbors who used to relocate a cobra a few hundred meters away from their home every few months, because they didn't want to kill it!

You're saying that locals in First World countries would somehow react better or be more educated about the eating habits of their local herps? I can only speak for America, which perhaps you're unfamiliar with,

Au contraire, I'm very familiar with it, and I know there's troglodytes everywhere, including Europe, hey, even in Finland What I tried to say in such clumsy terms is that the percentage of educated people in the West is higher than in the Third World. Per capita, there are more people caring about wildlife. For over two decades I've seen what reeducation of traditional beliefs achieved in Taiwan, a monolithic Chinese culture which as late as the 70s still didn't have any qualms about raping their forests for food. It was especially obvious when comparing data to Mainland China.

And don't forget that Thailand is mainly Buddhist. (I don't have a very positive opinion about Chinese Budhists regarding wildlife - their motives are purely selfish; but I seem to remember that Buddhism in Thailand is much more honest and passionate). On the topic of religion: the area around Bako National Park here in Sarawak teems with wildlife, even in and around the adjoining villages, and the sole reason for that is not because the villagers are all enlightened about nature, but because they're Muslims. Water monitors, otters, monkeys - they're not what's for dinner because they're not halal.

But I've strayed away from your question with one of my usual rants. Sorry. It's the cynical heathen in me. To get back to your original question: Westerners eat pigs...which are known scavengers.

It's all in the percentages. In countries with advanced education, you're more likely to find people reasonably enlightened about herps.

Then again, just last night an old bandmate from Germany told me that his eight-year old daughter - educated in Düsseldorf's most progressive schools - reacted to my invitation to come to Sarawak for a two-week family holiday thusly:

Au contraire, I'm very familiar with it, and I know there's troglodytes everywhere, including Europe, hey, even in Finland What I tried to say in such clumsy terms is that the percentage of educated people in the West is higher than in the Third World. Per capita, there are more people caring about wildlife. For over two decades I've seen what reeducation of traditional beliefs achieved in Taiwan, a monolithic Chinese culture which as late as the 70s still didn't have any qualms about raping their forests for food. It was especially obvious when comparing data to Mainland China.

I think that the modern environmental movement that we see in 1st-world countries is very much a product of the luxury of their wealth. They didn't start doing much to preserve their own ecosystems until they had already become wealthy in the process of destroying them. And those first-world countries that are powerful enough to extend their influence across the world (USA, Japan, etc.) have no problem using their multinational corporations to fantastically exploit the wildlife and environments of poorer third-world countries even as they protect their own resources back home.

I'm a gigantic proponent of education. Heck, in many ways my entire adult life has been devoted to education of one sort or another, and I especially see the need for that in third-world countries. But the reason they lack that education is because they lack wealth, not the other way around, and I believe that historically, it has been access to wealth, not education, that has defined the split between "first world" countries and "third world" countries.

To get back to your original question: Westerners eat pigs...which are known scavengers.

But I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that Westerners don't care what the food they eat "eats" (due in part to the respective religions the different societies developed within), than it does their superior education. Jewish people don't eat scavengers - and who would call them uneducated? Heck, there are many health-conscious, educated 1st-world persons who refuse to eat scavengers for dietary reasons (I've read entire books about it), and there are many uneducated 3rd-world persons who would eat anything they could lay their hands on. Pig, your example right there, is extremely popular in much of the 3rd world.

I think that the modern environmental movement that we see in 1st-world countries is very much a product of the luxury of their wealth. They didn't start doing much to preserve their own ecosystems until they had already become wealthy in the process of destroying them. And those first-world countries that are powerful enough to extend their influence across the world (USA, Japan, etc.) have no problem using their multinational corporations to fantastically exploit the wildlife and environments of poorer third-world countries even as they protect their own resources back home.

Very true.

Quote:

I'm a gigantic proponent of education. Heck, in many ways my entire adult life has been devoted to education of one sort or another, and I especially see the need for that in third-world countries. But the reason they lack that education is because they lack wealth, not the other way around, and I believe that historically, it has been access to wealth, not education, that has defined the split between "first world" countries and "third world" countries.

Also true, but there's another factor: the mindset. Malaysia, for instance, continuously releases relentless and nauseating propaganda in all available (state-controlled) media about how they're now a "developing" country on the way to First World status. Money-wise, that might be true. But unless they stop flaying their forests and covering the entire country with trash (individual as well as industrial), no amount of money will ever turn them into the Switzerland of Asia.

Quote:

But I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that Westerners don't care what the food they eat "eats" (due in part to the respective religions the different societies developed within), than it does their superior education

But I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that Westerners don't care what the food they eat "eats" (due in part to the respective religions the different societies developed within), than it does their superior education

Interesting point. Why do you think that is?

One idea that became very important in the foundation of Christianity was the view that religious food laws were a means of defining cultural boundaries, which was no longer necessary in the Christian worldview. (See the enlightenment of Peter on this subject in Christianity's New Testament.) Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, on the other hand, hold food laws in high regard and in many ways still use food as a important means of maintaining cultural distinctiveness. Christianity heavily influenced Europe, which became the definer of the "West" for the most part.

The non-Buddhist elements of Japanese and Chinese society also appear not to hold food laws in much importance, and that appears to have influenced the Buddhist elements of the society as well. Buddhist-influenced countries in general, though they technically have moral restrictions against eating any meat at all, don't appear to see food as a cultural distinctive and thus don't follow food laws with much vigor, though they do appear to hold onto remnants of their Hindu and/or animist origins and treat some food items as "inauspicious".

I should also add - in every society I've taken part in, be it Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., the very wealthy felt quite a bit of latitude to ignore the religious practices that were held in reverence by the poorer multitudes. Thus, I wouldn't be surprised if the wealthiness of the West would have led them to their willingness to eat just about anything even if they weren't based on a Christian framework.

p.s. - I'm basing most of what I'm saying here on my experiences with and knowledge of American, Canadian, Mexican, Egyptian, Indian, Thai, Cambodian, Filipino, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese societies. When I make generalizations about "Muslim" or "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Buddhist" cultures, I don't actually know for sure that those generalizations hold outside of the societies that I've had the most experience learning about and within.

Jonathan: First let me make it clear that I am an Atheist by choice in my adult life. But I would just like to clarify and rectify a blanket statement you indicated regarding that Judaic identity is primarily based on dietary practices. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Since I have had some of this religious dogmatism forced upon me and had to be schooled in it, I feel qualified to tell you if you made that statement to a Rabbi (A Jewish Scholar) they would not agree with you. That is only one small facet of Judaism. Also, I might add, if you were schooled in Talmudic laws and practices, you would have been aware that there are exceptions included in the scripture that will overide the Kosher laws: one example is if it meant you had to eat an item that was not considered Kosher in order to survive, and nothing else was available, it would be Okay to do so. So if there were only turtles for me to eat, and I was dying of starvation it wouldn't make me any less Jewish to consume them. Also, the Kosher Laws do not necessarily only include animals that scavenge; ie:ungulates that do not chew cud (such as horses) are not considered Kosher, fish that lack visible scales are not Kosher (and they may not be scavengers). Since you have a personal interest in religious doctrine, you might find it interesting to read a copy of the Talmud. To me it's a needless bore.

The way I see it, Third World countries are not defined by their lack of wealth, but rather by their lack of education....

You're saying that locals in First World countries would somehow react better or be more educated about the eating habits of their local herps? I can only speak for America, which perhaps you're unfamiliar with, but have you heard of rattlesnake roundups?

I don't know - I'm going to run with Hans' definition and consider the areas in which those rattlesnake roundups occur to be Third World Counties within a First World Country

klawnskale wrote:

... if you were schooled in Talmudic laws and practices, you would have been aware that there are exceptions included in the scripture that will overide the Kosher laws: one example is if it meant you had to eat an item that was not considered Kosher in order to survive...

This caught my eye and I wonder if that's a relatively recent interpretation of Talmudic law. When I was a kid (and being subjected to the same doctrines you were, I imagine) I can recall one of my teachers telling the story of some Jews that were captured during one of the many sackings of the temple in Jerusalem. The teacher then proudly exclaimed that when their captors told them to eat unkosher pig or face death, they chose death. "What heroes!" she exclaimed. "What fools!" I thought. I can't recall how old I was at the time other than that I was in primary school (I think I would have been 10 or 11), but to me it was one of the stupidest things I had ever heard and I, naively, tried to explain my stance to the teacher. I almost got it all out, too, before I was forced to stand in the hallway. By the time I left that school (at the age of 15, at which point I discovered a word that described my belief system - atheist - and insisted my parents send me to a secular public school) I became very familiar with standing in the hallway, visits to the principle, chats with the teachers after class...

The way I see it, Third World countries are not defined by their lack of wealth, but rather by their lack of education....

You're saying that locals in First World countries would

klawnskale wrote:

... if you were schooled in Talmudic laws and practices, you would have been aware that there are exceptions included in the scripture that will overide the Kosher laws: one example is if it meant you had to eat an item that was not considered Kosher in order to survive...

This caught my eye and I wonder if that's a relatively recent interpretation of Talmudic law. When I was a kid (and being subjected to the same doctrines you were, I imagine) I can recall one of my teachers telling the story of some Jews that were captured during one of the many sackings of the temple in Jerusalem. The teacher then proudly exclaimed that when their captors told them to eat unkosher pig or face death, they chose death. "What heroes!" she exclaimed. "What fools!" I thought. I can't recall how old I was at the time other than that I was in primary school (I think I would have been 10 or 11), but to me it was one of the stupidest things I had ever heard and I, naively, tried to explain my stance to the teacher. I almost got it all out, too, before I was forced to stand in the hallway. By the time I left that school (at the age of 15, at which point I discovered a word that described my belief system - atheist - and insisted my parents send me to a secular public school) I became very familiar with standing in the hallway, visits to the principle, chats with the teachers after class...

I was not taught your interpretation of that incident. The Rabbi that instructed the classes I attended did not teach us with that type of viewpoint. Your best bet would be to pose the question to a Jewish Scholar online. Yes they have them now. I actually asked a Rabbi if it technically was considered "Kosher" to keep reptiles as pets just as a joke. You will find most of the Rabbis who have chosen to go on the web very willing to share their knowledge, quite accommodating and take great joy in answering such questions. Part of being a Jewish Scholar is being involved in a continuous debate with other like-minded scholars on interpretations of Talmudic Law. It would only give me a headache.

Hans you do realize you have been engaging in a discourse with a , don't you?

Yes, of course. A Christian Missionary who's been very scientific and logical in all the posts I've seen so far, and I admire him for his lucidity.

In return, I hope you all realize that he's been engaging in a discourse with a raging, albeit currently sober, alcoholic and drug abuser. People are too complex to pin them down on just one of their many facets. Hey, I even have German friends!

Quote:

consider the areas in which those rattlesnake roundups occur to be Third World Counties within a First World Country

In return, I hope you all realize that he's been engaging in a discourse with a raging, albeit currently sober, alcoholic and drug abuser. People are too complex to pin them down on just one of their many facets. Hey, I even have German friends!

I hear you, Hans. BTW, you might be interested in knowing I had a German Jewish uncle that sought refuge in China during WW2. He lived in Shanghai for many years, learned to be a cobbler there before he immigrated to the States. He spoke 4 languages: German, Yiddish, Mandarin and English. He would sometimes tease us and speak to us in Mandarin when I visited him as a kid. i didn't realize that there was an enclave of Jewish refugees living in Shanghai at that time until he told me.

Last edited by klawnskale on January 8th, 2012, 8:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Your best bet would be to pose the question to a Jewish Scholar online.

Yeah, sorry, not curious enough. Just not THAT interested. Been there, done that, a very long time ago (albeit pre-internet and online scholars). During the last year of my attendance at the private school mentioned above we had a religious teacher (as in, teaching us religion, although undoubtedly he was religious as well) that was meant to have been a great talmudic scholar of world renown. We were told for around a year before his arrival how lucky we were to get him, so it's possible the 'world renown' was just hype for the kiddies, but he seemed serious enough. The poor guy fielded a lot of questions from me that year and usually had me wait until class was finished to reply to my question, because the answer was likely to be long and would disrupt the class. The answers were never satisfying and seemed as sensible as the 'death before pork' bid. It was at the end of that year that I was certain of my atheism and that stance has only been bolstered with the intake of additional information over the years.

BTW, you might be interested in knowing I had a German Jewish uncle that sort refuge in China during WW2. He lived in Shanghai for many years, learned to be a cobbler there before he immigrated to the States. He spoke 4 languages: German, Yiddish, Mandarin and English. He would sometimes tease us and speak to us in Mandarin when I visited him as a kid. i didn't realize that there was enclave of Jewish refugees living in Shanghai at that time until he told me.

In this case, I recommend S. J. Rozan's "Shanghai Moon", a wonderfully researched crime novel that deals with the topic of Jewish refugees in that city during WWII.

Fascinating read.. I think that Hans' frustration is genuine and it really does seem like most of these third world people don't give a toss about anything. Comparing to your Western childhood and possibly an environment-conscious upbringing you remember that things were different back home. Yes, we protect the environment better in the West because there is less corruption and laws are enforced and people are educated. But none of those apply to other countries, so the evil people will take their business there. In the end, though, the environmentalist that then purchases goods from these evil corporations are feeding the demand.

I completely agree with everything that Johnathan has said, but I totally understand where you are coming from, Hans. I am VERY frustrated with China. I would blame Communism, religion, culture, etc.. but in the end it was still us and has always been. We f*cked up most of the world with colonisation and even independence has only shifted from direct to indirect control. All of these other countries are our resources and we will take what we want until there is nothing left before we consider raping our own countries (because there are actually people that care a lot back home - just not enough to make a real difference).

The entire world lives on greed and corruption. It's easy to blame the third world countries, but "we" want to keep them that way. What pisses me off about China is that there is an immeasurable wealth going around and the education is not following quick enough after that madman told everyone to make more babies. India is even scarier, though up until now seems to be spared from overindustrialisation of China's magnitude. People in China are exposed to horrific pollution yet tell you that it's just a bit misty today! Educated people here feed off the stupid masses and accumulate fortunes and move to America or elsewhere to spend it and enjoy old age. It's corruption.

Also, I wish that Chinese people genuinely believed in anything (like harmony with the universe) but filling their own pockets, but that idea was stamped out in the sixties. I mean, without the current evil government I suppose there wouldn't be a China at all so it's our fault for corruption the empire and the resulting "revolutions"... *sigh*

Even though this post caused a little controversy with beliefs, everyone has been very respectful when commenting on members opinions. Especially with peoples suggestions on getting more information about the topic at hand. A nice change compared to other posts on the forum.....

Hans you do realize you have been engaging in a discourse with a Christian Missionary, don't you?

Before this rumor runs rampant any further, I do not consider myself a Christian missionary. I think Hellihooks might have called me that in the past (apologies to hellihooks if he's not the person klawnskale got that impression from), but I don't personally feel the definition fits. Yes, I am a Christian in most senses of the word, and I am moving overseas for reasons that are deeply tied to my faith. Otherwise there is little resemblance between myself and what people call missionaries - I don't preach, or set up churches, or go around evangelizing. Our long-term goals for our lives overseas, and everything we've done in the past in our professions, is much better characterized by "community development" than by "missionary work".

klawnskale wrote:

But I would just like to clarify and rectify a blanket statement you indicated regarding that Judaic identity is primarily based on dietary practices. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Since I have had some of this religious dogmatism forced upon me and had to be schooled in it, I feel qualified to tell you if you made that statement to a Rabbi (A Jewish Scholar) they would not agree with you. That is only one small facet of Judaism. Also, I might add, if you were schooled in Talmudic laws and practices, you would have been aware that there are exceptions included in the scripture that will overide the Kosher laws: one example is if it meant you had to eat an item that was not considered Kosher in order to survive, and nothing else was available, it would be Okay to do so. So if there were only turtles for me to eat, and I was dying of starvation it wouldn't make me any less Jewish to consume them. Also, the Kosher Laws do not necessarily only include animals that scavenge; ie:ungulates that do not chew cud (such as horses) are not considered Kosher, fish that lack visible scales are not Kosher (and they may not be scavengers). Since you have a personal interest in religious doctrine, you might find it interesting to read a copy of the Talmud. To me it's a needless bore.

I'm not sure how any of this runs counter to anything I said. I never said that "Judaic identity is primarily based on dietary practices". I merely said that dietary practices are a cultural marker - they are one way of demonstrating Jewish identity and showing how their people are distinct from others, but they are not the root of what that distinctiveness is based on (that root, I would say, would be that they identify themselves as the chosen people of God). And dietary practices are just one cultural marker among several - including circumcision, study of Torah, and practice of Sabbath. The fact that there are exceptions to the dietary laws, and the fact that the dietary laws cover animals other than just scavengers, doesn't really address the point at all. They still, generally, tend to be held onto tighter than merely "moral" laws - many people who stop even trying to practice the moral laws of their religion will still demonstrate comparatively strong fidelity to their religion's cultural markers.

Last edited by jonathan on January 8th, 2012, 8:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

One idea that became very important in the foundation of Christianity was the view that religious food laws were a means of defining cultural boundaries, which was no longer necessary in the Christian worldview. (See the enlightenment of Peter on this subject in Christianity's New Testament.)Indian, Thai, Cambodian, Filipino, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese societies.

I was not trying to 'counter' anything that you stated, Jonathan. I was only 'enlightening' you to some of the doctrines of the Jewish Faith. But I can't help but detect a certain amount of dogmatic arrogance such as in the quote I grabbed above from your earlier post. There is always going to be some present in all forms of religion; which I personally view as being more destructive than productive; and I am not necessarily singling out Christianity in particular. I am all for enlightenment through education and the acquisition of knowledge; but when there is a stipulation attached to it whether it's in the presence of carrying a Bible, Torah or Koran or whatever, they should be mutually exclusive. The one thing I will have to make the claim for Judaism is that it doesn't consider it its purpose to convert others that are non believers into their faith. If anything, Jewish conversion is greatly discouraged. But this is probably due to a conceited form of arrogance rather than the gregarious purpose of Christianity to acquire more disciples.

I was not trying to 'counter' anything that you stated, Jonathan. I was only 'enlightening' you to some of the doctrines of the Jewish Faith. But I can't help but detect a certain amount of dogmatic arrogance such as in the quote I grabbed above from your earlier post.

You can view it that way if you want. From my reading of historic and religious texts both, the fact that some Christians did not go along with Jewish cultural markers was a major point of contention in the 1st century. Christianity came directly from Judaism, and in its early days it was almost certainly considered another sect of Judaism, rather than a separate religion. But a major controversy was the fact that some Christians considered it unnecessary to continue to practice Jewish cultural markers. This became a major point of contention between Christians themselves, and the teachings of Jesus, Peter, and Paul were recorded as saying that the era in which such cultural markings were necessary had passed (though they clearly had opponents from within on this point, including Peter himself for some time). This dropping of the cultural distinctives probably contributed greatly to the split that eventually led Christianity to be perceived as something entirely different from Judaism and not just a separate sect within it.

The intended purpose of my previous comments was not to cite differences in various religious doctrines per se, nor to delve upontheir individual differences as is explained in religious texts. It was to state in my opinion, a common trait that is present in all religions; regardless of their origins. I am not really interested in quoting any type of scripture, biblical references or debating about that. I have a copy of Bullfinch's Mythology at home. Which I find infinitely more interesting,

Last edited by klawnskale on January 8th, 2012, 1:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

With the little chapel bell ringing in the distance , the grass trembled as if in joy . Bright temples were the skies and finally at the top of the hillside Laura Ingalls thrust her tiny cornflower sleeved fist into the air and shouted:

What mechanisms spur me with intense curiousity, and Whom has answered my most important questions , co exist in my sensibilities without strain. I will not get more specific than that , for I do not feel I am a good enough example . I try to serve in my life but know I am very flawed.

If a person makes repeated proclaimations of What They "Are", how they carry it becomes a personified example of it to others.

We Get It - Your an Atheist . Im sure that isnt synonymous with being invasive and miserable. So why make it sound that way? [/quote]

Not my problem if you find my public proclamation of being an Atheist offensive. With so many millions of others eager to publicly proclaim their religious persuasions I don't find it anymore offensive. But YOU seem to. If you had read the thread in its entirety you would have also noticed that another individual publicly claimed to be an Atheist.

I was just thinking of the collective cringe of other atheists actually .

Oh I'm relatively quiet for being an Atheist. There are alot more vocal ones than me. Shows how little you know about them. I am rather surprised at your viewpoint regarding Atheism. For someone with your sexual orientation, I would imagine you would be far more acceptable regarding someone who may view things a bit differently than what is socially and culturally acceptable. No, it is not considered acceptable by the majority in our society to be Atheist. And if you find it offensive for an Atheist to be honest about their opinions, then I would have to say the problem is with YOU. Regarding someone's sexual orientation: I could care less who people prefer to love and get it on with. So long as there is no harm done and it is consentual for both parties involved. So if someone who believes in a God entity is insulted or offended by someone who finds flaws in their belief systems, well...TOO BAD! Who said it's "Okay" to be Atheist so long as you keep quiet and don't openly express your opinions and possibly offend those that aren't? What a load of crap.That's like condoning closet homosexuality .

Jonathan,I don't recall specifically saying you were a 'missionary', but I may have.... I do recall in our discussions a similar calling in your work overseas and the Ministry I ran, from Matt 25:36(?) Verily I say unto thee, that whatever thou hast done for the least of these, my Brethern, thou hast done for me.

Nowadays, as an philosophical 'ethicist' I consider all religion species of "Divine Command Theory' which IMO generally result in morally-commendable (if adhered to) manners by which to live one's life... so I don't object to anyone choosing these 'faithful' paths. To each his own...

My mom greeted Hitler with flowers at the gates to Bremerhaven, in 1939, at age 4.... and was excommancated from the Catholic Church in 65, for divorcing my alcoholic Irish (descent) Father, Bob Bass.... Not sure what that makes me... cept who I am... Which of course, compels me to conclude with a rude, crude, blue joke... 'What kind of meat do Priests eat on Friday?.... None.' jim"A little philosophy taketh a man from Religion... A breadth in philosophy bringth a man to God" Sir Francis Bacon (Father of Inductive Reasoning BTW) Edit... post-thought... can Jewish people even READ Bacon?

I was just thinking of the collective cringe of other atheists actually .

Atheists have a collective cringe? How so?

klawnskale wrote:

I am rather surprised at your viewpoint regarding Atheism...And if you find it offensive for an Atheist to be honest about their opinions, then I would have to say the problem is with YOU.

Unless Kelly was being ironic, which was possibly the case given the emoticons, I don't think this statement infers offense at atheism, for it says "I'm sure that isn't synonymous with being invasive and miserable:

Kelly Mc wrote:

We Get It - Your an Atheist . Im sure that isnt synonymous with being invasive and miserable. So why make it sound that way?

klawnskale wrote:

No, it is not considered acceptable by the majority in our society to be Atheist.

Dude, you need to live here, where it's the other way around. A friend recently found jesus (I refrained from adding the classic "he was behind the sofa the whole time!"). I support her because she's a friend and has been through some rough times recently, but she has told me on a couple of occasions how difficult it has been to tell her friends about it because of the odd looks she gets.

This entire post has turned into one big bore. I won't apologize for anything I've said. As I've told others: if you don't like my comments: a) ignore them b)block them . But don't expect me to change my opinions because you don't agree with them. That's all that this is about: opinions. Scientific facts on the other hand; I will defer if I am incorrect and stand corrected. I wish people would get over the idea of being offended because their belief systems are challenged. If you feel 'believing in Jesus' or whom/ whatever makes your life easier, then embrace the placebo effect. Just leave me out of it. Paul: I don't see the logic in the reference of your post. I don't need to prove my morality and personal value system to others here in order to be an accepted participant on this Forum. So long as I follow the site's Rules of Conduct I'm good to go. Just wait until the Hadron Collider isolates the Higgs-Boson Particle. You won't hear the end of this kind of conflict...

Last edited by klawnskale on January 9th, 2012, 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We're sorry klawn - It's simply that your 'thin-skin' and intolerance of others makes for such an irresistible target. Many of us are without religion. I am one of the above mentioned people that cringes at the face you put on Atheism/Agnosticism. I am now eagerly awaiting, "Episode 2: The Wrath of Klawn"

We're sorry klawn - It's simply that your 'thin-skin' and intolerance of others makes for such an irresistible target. Many of us are without religion. I am one of the above mentioned people that cringes at the face you put on Atheism/Agnosticism. I am now eagerly awaiting, "Episode 2: The Wrath of Klawn"

well. if it's any consolation to you Stephen Hawking did state that the existence and/or non-existence of God cannot be verified because there is no quantifiable data to verify it either way... It is YOU who seems to feel some sense of guilt for me outwardly condemning the believers. Cringing not necessary. Stop feeling sorry for the delusional bastards!

Note that Russell wasn't a true, believing atheist. Like me, he thought about it for decades and then suddenly was too old to be anything but scientific about things: "to believe" means "not to know", saying that there is no God without proof is just as unscientific as any religion.

As those bus ads in the States say "There's probably no God. Now relax and enjoy your life!"

Hans @ the top of the fence is the only place to be for a rational thinker

Note that Russell wasn't a true, believing atheist. Like me, he thought about it for decades and then suddenly was too old to be anything but scientific about things: "to believe" means "not to know", saying that there is no God without proof is just as unscientific as any religion.

As those bus ads in the States say "There's probably no God. Now relax and enjoy your life!"

Hans @ the top of the fence is the only place to be for a rational thinker

I have never seen that bus ad. One I missed. I wonder which city they were running those ads. Good one, though!